This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← The Consolation of Philosophy

Schrodinger's Cat's Avatar Jump to comment 10 by Schrodinger's Cat

Instead, sticking firm to the classical ontological definition of nothing as “the absence of anything”—whatever this means—so essential to theological, and some subset of philosophical intransigence, strikes me as essentially sterile, backward, useless and annoying.

What's intransigent about insisting that nothing means nothing ? Never mind philosophy...this isn't even rocket science. To argue that metaphysical nothing doesn't exist, or cannot exist, it is not good enough simply to say that 'nothing' is actually equivalent to 'something'. It'a s cop out. It hasn't answered the question of why something exists as opposed to nothing.

Sat, 28 Apr 2012 01:24:11 UTC | #937870